Adam Hamawy’s Ties to the “Blind Sheikh” Deserve Answers

When someone asks voters to send him to the United States Congress, his judgment matters.

This is why Adam Hamawy’s documented relationship with Omar Abdel-Rahman, the radical Egyptian cleric widely known as the “Blind Sheikh,” deserves far more scrutiny than it has received.

Abdel-Rahman was no ordinary religious leader. In 1995, he was convicted of seditious conspiracy and other crimes connected to a plot to attack major New York City landmarks and assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The case grew out of the federal investigation following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. New Jersey Monitor

Adam Hamawy was not simply someone who happened to cross paths with him once.

According to reporting based on the transcript of Abdel-Rahman’s federal trial, Hamawy’s association with Abdel-Rahman stretched over several years, included a visit to the cleric’s home, and included a 13-hour trip with him from New Jersey to Detroit in 1991. Hamawy later appeared as a defense witness at Abdel-Rahman’s 1995 terrorism trial. Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Those facts raise questions that voters have every right to ask.

A 13-Hour Trip With Abdel-Rahman

In 1991, Hamawy traveled approximately 13 hours from New Jersey to Detroit with Abdel-Rahman and others to attend a conference called “Towards a Global Islamic Economy.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency

The trip later became important evidence in Abdel-Rahman’s terrorism trial.

Government informant Emad Salem testified that during the drive, Abdel-Rahman encouraged him to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. When Hamawy took the witness stand for Abdel-Rahman’s defense in 1995, he testified that he had been sitting immediately behind Abdel-Rahman and Salem and did not hear Abdel-Rahman make such a statement. Contemporary reporting described Hamawy as contradicting the government’s chief informant on that point. New York Times reporting referenced here

This was not a minor part of the case. Former federal judge Michael Mukasey, who presided over Abdel-Rahman’s trial, has written about Hamawy’s appearance in his courtroom and the role of Hamawy’s testimony in rebutting the prosecution witness who said Abdel-Rahman had urged Mubarak’s assassination. Wall Street Journal

What Was Being Preached?

Hamawy’s testimony becomes even more troubling when the substance of the Detroit conference is examined.

On direct examination, Hamawy characterized the Detroit gathering as an Islamic economics conference. But under cross-examination by federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, he acknowledged that Abdel-Rahman had spoken about jihad. Investigative Project on Terrorism

According to the trial materials examined by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Abdel-Rahman’s featured address was titled “The Best Way on Supporting Jihad.” Investigative Project on Terrorism

During cross-examination, Fitzgerald also asked Hamawy whether Abdel-Rahman had discussed “conquering the land of the infidels.” Hamawy initially said he did not specifically recall it, but after being shown the transcript, acknowledged the passage and ultimately agreed that Abdel-Rahman had been speaking about jihad. Investigative Project on Terrorism

The trial testimony went even further.

Hamawy acknowledged under questioning that before Abdel-Rahman’s arrest he had heard the cleric describe America as an enemy of Islam and Israel as an enemy of Islam. When asked about Abdel-Rahman discussing jihad, Hamawy testified that this was what the cleric “always talked about” in public appearances. Legal Insurrection

That matters! It means the issue is not simply whether Hamawy knew someone who was later discovered to hold extremist beliefs. By Hamawy’s own testimony, he was aware before Abdel-Rahman’s arrest that the cleric publicly discussed jihad and described America and Israel as enemies of Islam. Legal Insurrection Yet Hamawy subsequently appeared as a defense witness in Abdel-Rahman’s terrorism trial. New Jersey Monitor

Critics Say Hamawy’s Testimony Raises Serious Questions

Perhaps the most troubling issue today is not simply that Hamawy testified for Abdel-Rahman’s defense, but what critics say about the testimony he gave. New Jersey Monitor

The Investigative Project on Terrorism reviewed portions of the trial record in 2026 and accused Hamawy of giving misleading testimony that repeatedly minimized or failed to recall incriminating statements until prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald confronted him with documentary evidence. Investigative Project on Terrorism

One example concerns Mubarak. When Fitzgerald initially asked Hamawy whether he remembered Abdel-Rahman discussing Mubarak during the Detroit weekend, Hamawy said, “No. Not really.” After Fitzgerald showed him the transcript of Abdel-Rahman’s speech, Hamawy acknowledged that the passage refreshed his recollection. Investigative Project on Terrorism

Another example concerned jihad. Hamawy initially described the gathering as an economics conference and resisted Fitzgerald’s characterization of Abdel-Rahman’s speech as being about jihad. After being confronted with the transcript, Hamawy ultimately agreed that the speech involved jihad. Investigative Project on Terrorism

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who worked on the Abdel-Rahman prosecution, has also criticized Hamawy’s testimony, saying that Hamawy appeared voluntarily for the defense and that his claim not to remember the Mubarak conversation was “not very persuasive.” Fox News These criticisms should be described accurately.

Hamawy was not convicted of perjury, and we do not claim that he was. The stronger and factually responsible point is that critics who have examined his testimony argue that some of his answers were misleading or contradicted by evidence presented during cross-examination. Investigative Project on Terrorism

Voters can read the record and decide for themselves.

Hamawy’s Explanation

Hamawy has defended his association with Abdel-Rahman, saying the cleric was one of relatively few Muslim religious figures available to what was then a small Muslim community in New Jersey. His campaign says Hamawy condemns Abdel-Rahman’s “violent rhetoric and actions” and had no contact with him after his arrest. Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Hamawy has also characterized his appearance at Abdel-Rahman’s trial as an act of civic responsibility.

“I was called as a witness, and I gave my testimony under oath, and then I walked out,” Hamawy told the New Jersey Monitor, describing it as a “civic duty.” New Jersey Monitor

But that explanation does not erase the underlying questions.

In an interview reported by The New York Times, Hamawy defended the context of his earlier relationship with Abdel-Rahman by saying the cleric “wasn’t preaching death and destruction all the time” and that Abdel-Rahman had certain views he expressed in certain forums. New York Times reporting referenced here

For many Central New Jersey voters, that explanation may raise more questions than it answers.

This Is About Judgment

Voters do not have to ignore documented facts simply because they occurred decades ago.

Hamawy met Abdel-Rahman, spent time around him, visited his home, traveled with him for approximately 13 hours, heard him discuss jihad and describe America and Israel as enemies of Islam, and ultimately testified as a witness for his defense in one of the most consequential terrorism prosecutions in American history. Jewish Telegraphic Agency

These are not allegations invented during an election campaign. They come from Hamawy’s own testimony and the public record surrounding Abdel-Rahman’s trial. Investigative Project on Terrorism

And now critics have raised additional questions about whether Hamawy’s testimony minimized what he knew about Abdel-Rahman’s rhetoric and activities until he was confronted with evidence during cross-examination. Investigative Project on Terrorism

Adam Hamawy wants the people of Central New Jersey to entrust him with a seat in the United States Congress. Before they do, they deserve a complete and candid explanation of his relationship with Omar Abdel-Rahman, why he chose to testify for Abdel-Rahman’s defense, and whether he stands today by every answer he gave under oath in that courtroom in 1995. New Jersey Monitor

This is not guilt by association, but rather accountability by examination.

When the office at stake is a seat in the United States Congress, asking difficult questions about a candidate’s judgment is not only fair, it's necessary.